PUBLIC OPINION

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2200, 13 July 1914, Page 8

PUBLIC OPINION

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR . A REPLY TO,BISHOP SPROTT, Sir,—The spcecli'iof' tho Anglican Bishop of Wellington - on the' question of Bible in schools is. a welcome addition, to tho. discussion of this subject, for' there is no attempt to misrepresent the views of opponents,' but there'is.a clear statement of .the"- fundamentals of thb Bishop's position. .•■•lt'is to these fundamentals that <1,-propose : to confine my. criticism. \ ; . 1. Might'or Right—The first'article of the Bishop's,new, creed is that ;ti" majority has the right to decide issues of conscience. ■ That it lies within tho might of a; majority so. to dotermiue'no one doubts: a majority might determine to force .on us a State church, fright •determine to enslave .the'- -minority; ■ might \ determine, . to', crush out' all 'un-' opinions; 'i But . has : it l'theright so ,to' do? ; Obviously 'not,• unless ■the' .Bishop, is prepared to preach , the gospel that Might...is Right.• '■ -In the past this doctrine led to' cTvir dissensions and'bloody wars, and will do so again if any.-natiori is prepared, to. commit suicide; in, this way. It,'is true, that Parliament has'the-power to pass the Referendum-Bill j'.i it is true\ thata majority,might be.misled .into-voting for- such'.■~unjust : proposals ;as those advocated 1 by the Bible-in-Schools League,; and that 'Parliament might thereafter) enact th'em. ■ But surely Bisljop Sprott; ■had not forgotten the'Reformation,'-the temper of thcrNon-Cohfdrmists.- and the. Passive Resistance Movement. Parliament and tho people have, the power, but they have/not the right, to coerce a minority in/matters of conscience.. This is the issue, involved: Is the majority.'to use its power to - coerce; the coniinience of the minority' If Parlia-'. ment, says,. Yes,' then : Parliament must be prepared to accept the consequences. 2. The Sword of Damocles.—The Bishop supports the doctrine. of "might is right," with a'threat of what will' happen politically if the Bible-in-Schools, League does, not get' its own way,; it will make the.question a political issno .at the next, election. ,It is "an idle' threat, for the matter is already'settled; the Cjpvernment lias made it apolitical .issue by, introducing the; Referendum Bill. AS far as. we are concerned, the only way of removing the. question from next 1 election is, by throVing but the Bill. If the Bill be passed by, Parliament; does the Bishop fondly imagine that those who have .been betrayed (for, be it remembered, this Parliament Has no mandate oil this question) .will sit quietly down, and not carry itlie fight: further ?.. The Anglican Church should ' know moro of the spirit of Non-Conformists. Like wise men, we have, forgiven, .but 110F forgotten. Tho obTious duty of this Parliament is to throw out the Referendum Bill, and let those who are agitating, for the change show, at the'next- election: that there,is a demand for it. - It 'is merely because: tho Bible-in-Schools League realises that there is no hope for' it along:constitutional lines, that It makes this, for a refer-. endunr/ ,3. Tho Fallaoy of Many Questions.— The Bishop fails! .to deal with tho- unfairness of demanding a single reply to two distinct questions—a recognised fallacy as old as Aristotle. \ The Bishop is logical enough to. see that there isno reasonable defence' of, tho proposal to combine the two issues on the - bal-. lot-paper. ■ He therefore falls. Ijack on expediency.! The separation; of the issues will not, lie reiterates, placate his opponents. .'Unfortunately for' 'the Bishop's .case, this is besido the point. What Parliament is: called on to do is riol to T>lacat« th« two parties,but, if it grants a referendum, to make sure that the issues aro so stated that, every elector, may • bo' able tq. express unambiguously his opinion 1 on the kind of religious instruction, if any, that lie dosires to' see introduced into the State schools. No one should; be, disenfranchised because there is 110 ' issue' for which he can.' • conscientiously vote. Why tho combine of the churches is lighting so hard for the combination of tho issues was disclosed by a member of the Dunedin executive—Mr. Braitii-' waits —when lie pointed out that some members of .the.'Bible-in-Schools; League wanted .the lessons by the .teachers, but not the right of entry; and otliers deaired'nothing if. they could not get the right oteutry. Tho separation of tlie issues on the ballot-paper would porniit. every individual' to express his rea'i opinion, but, peculiarly enough, that is not what those who are asking for a referendum desire. 1 suggest' that a fair ballot paper would be:— (1) I vote that the present jsystem of education be'retained. (2) I vote that the clergy bo given the right of: entry into the schools in school hours'. v - . : . 1 . (3) I vote that teachers be compelled, without a'. conscience,' clause, to give general religious teaching in the'schools. This would enable' every 'elector to express' his mind on this'subject. If he wanted the Australian system, he would vote for 2 and 8; but lie could, rote for one or.otherlf ho so desired. It would also be desirable to include, tho "Nelson system" on the ballot paper, as many electors favour it. 4. The Address Significantly' Silent on the Position of the Teachers.—Why i» | there no reference tfi tho position' of teachers under,tho proposed scheme!? Did the courage, of the Bishop fail him

at-this point? The proposals rlp.ee sovero disabilities on many • teachers. Tho State, again, no doubt lias the power to compel teachers to "conform, 1 ' and givo the general religious, teacliing or to find a living elsewliero. Many members of the Bible-. in-Schools Leaguo 6tate" this alternative with brutal frankness. -The State may have tho power, but again, has it tlio right? I feel confident that • whatever 'members of Parliament do, they will not be cowardly enough to try to divest themselves of their responsibility to those,who,.-'in all- good faith, have entered the service of tlio State and given tho best years of their lives .to tlie work* of educating the young.' Against the gospel of might preached by the Bishop, I urge the> gospel of right. .... ■ ■ ■ Y ■ "They .are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing and abuse, Y. Bather tlian in silence shrink From the truth, they needs must think; , \ They are slaves who dare not be < In. the right with two or three." I' am, etc., - . THOS. A. HUNTER.: Wellington, July 8, 1914. - [Professor Hunter appears to have forgotten that Bishop Sprott expressly stated in his address tjiat. lie'-did not propose , to repeat - what he •-. said last year, and that lie had found no reason in the interval to j doubt tho soundness of: the arguments, he then put forth, lit last year's address the- Bishop dealt at; some length -with the position, of the teacher, and it may prove Yhelpful to republish his remarks on this aspect of the question. .He said: Y. •. How often must we protest,- that the teachers are non to be asked, or even allowed,. to teach reliction or dogniati-' cally interpret the Bible?'. What, the teacher will be tasked'.to do is to supervise the reading l .by the children of certain selected passages, merely seeing that the, children, know and 'remember what ' they have -read. I know it, is said that the value .of .siich an exercise must be small. : Those,, however, who, advocate it believe that the Bible is calculated, like any other book, to make its own impression upon the mind. , But'we are'-not now concerned' with the valuo of the exorcise; . only., with its bearing upon the conscience; of the . ' What . the teacher . is, required to ao amounts just to this— to read the Bible with the children. To, assert, .that " this ' will violato tlio.' teacher's conscience is to assert that a number, of our, teachers thiiikYit a wicked thing' oven to read the Bible. I find it difficult to believe'that this ' .can be-true of any appreciable numbei of teachers. I have met 1 in my time people who have formed veryY various estimates of .'the. Bible's value; but I liavo not met anyono."whose estimate of the Bible was so-peculiar that, his conscience, forbade him to 'rcaU it. The tea'chfers . who am. alleged to have this conscientious objection : are' to b'e agnostic,,' in- religion,', or - at .least unbelievers in the '.miraculous. .They have accepted the. dictum—, a . somewhat dubious dictum—"Miracles do not. happen." , Well, Matthew. Arnold accepted, that '••' dictum,. and" did much to'give it vogue,'even if lie'flid not invent it. Yet ■ in the;; very-; book* 'in which' that : famous.-phrase; occurs he extols the isupreme ana indispensabje value of the, Biblo as an instrument of moral education (Lit.- arid ; Dog., pp. 42, 43). He himself , tells; us that-when he was Inspector of Schools ho kept insisting . m'.,his i.-'reports';:to';'the Educa-, tion Department on,tho need for' the Bible in .schools,- forthe, people, and himself prepared .a fext-'book of "Bitile Heading for Schools." , Evidently Arnold did not imagine • lie : . was', urging the English Education Department; to violato tho consciences of .those teachers who, like .himself,diave ascertained that miracles do not happen. I should advise people, to '-rea'd his Preface to his' It contains • some wise words upon;,the: literary; i usei of the Bilile,; to which , lie confines teachers, and its relation to the , spiritual, application, of the Bible, which:ho holds to be a matter for the churches.'-.Or.are some of _ our teachers more' thorough-: going still, and wholly agnostic.'in religion? Even; then.it would not se.em necessarily to follow' that .'they ;must count it wicked to read the Bible; They are probablyv not more agnostio tlian Huxley, the inventor of the term Agnostic. ; Yet, as everybody.vknows, Huxley strongly supported-' the roadihg. of tlie Bible, in the London Board Schools. Evidently Huxley,-just as little as' Arnold, - imagined- he was ■ doing- violence' to tho consciences of who. like himself, and possibly through his; influence, were agnostic. !. . I seem to observe that tho plea is. mado rather for tlio teachers than by thcih, mid'l count it just a trifle ridiculous. THE REFERENDUM. , {Sir,—r"l .have lead in the papers many lotters.'ro tho; Bible-in-sch'ools; but-com-paratively /few' 1 in reference to the referendum, though there , are many petitions both to Parliament and to members both for and against that Bill ' Although people, may hold opposing views against .the former, I do not see where' thoir sense 'of' justice comes in in opposing' the latter, for ' sur'dy on" such a' great, national question' the' people, have at' least a right to vote. Was not the. Bible. put 'out of the New' Zealand schools ' mainly through. Sir Robert Stout, without the people being asked their opinion .on the matter,• and, compared \vith to-day, \vlicn tiiero were only a handful of people'in the country ? Surely, then, it is only just, that they should have a chance of, voting on tlio ,matter.- Why are the opponents of tlio scliome afraid of letting 'the people -speak'oil the question? 1 was-gfad to S?e that one Hawke's Bay member said' that.lie would vote for the Bill, and do not see why any M.P. of a demo-' cratic country' should vote against it," for it should be. outside, party. Even if ~a;'M.P. gave ,«i pledge that lie w;ould •support tho present system, surely, l.e did,'not pledge l-imself to refuse to give'the people a chance of speaking or. , the matter, and that is'the right which the people are demanding If. they do uot 'get that right,-then the question will becomo a party ono at-the coming election, and a burning one at; that. '.. 1 - .' .'' _ In conclusioiij I should like to ' saythat, a great injustice is being; doiie, to' one-third, if hot to a half, or more, of the'/teachers of New Zealand by tho statement that all. the ;teachers are opposed to this Bill. As the' great majority do not attend teachers' meetings, the ' institute has no right to speak for them, but has'tha right to speak .only for the very few who do attend.—l 'am, etc., ■ i'. , ■■ ■, . COUNTRY RESIDENT. Hawke's Bay. . . Y _ THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS (JUESTIONSir,—Apropos' of your'leading article in to-day's lssuej it .would surely bo more satisfactory lending -your assistance to the demand for a plebiscite, you iiiado some attempt to show why a religious question should, under any circumstances, becomo tlio subject of' a plebiscite. You will agree, , no doubt, that thero must he some limit' to tlie functions of legislation, and, unless you are prepared to go'the length of admitting that it is competent for thb Legislature to enforce religious tenets, you should, as a matter of loeis.. deny the moral right of- a however large, to obtain' a plebiscite on a religious issue., ;My own uow is that any question which' lies outside the proper scope of legislation is also; beyond the scope of.the plebiscite, for in admitting that a given subject may ho submitted to a plebiscite, wo by implication admit that that issue may properly be the subject of, legislation. It is idle, thereforo, to argue that Parliament is, notxoucernod.with tho question of a plebiscite on ,tjie v question-o!; Biblein the public schools; for slipuldthe'majority decide in favour of them,

Parliament mast then address, itself to , ' tho task or giving . effect to tlio will of . ■ the majority. Disguise as you may. you. cannot escape the conclusion that to ad- . m ' l, '' le , J'iglxt to a plebiscite on the '' question is •to admit the right of 'tlio , majority, through Parliament, ' to enforce by law certain religious tenets. ' ■ That-means that the minority must be ' . compelled to pay {axes for the inculca- ; .tion of principles to which they object, further, it means that teachers who • object to Bibhs lessons are-to; be forcedY at.the;,will, of a mere majority to decide whether they ' will outrage their Y. consciences or , abandon tho . profession they have cliosen! You may call this ' democratic; , I call it tyranny. Caesar,' however,'sought to cloth© his tyranny ' with legality, through tho Senate,' and so ;our would-be tyrants- of •,modoru timcsYseek to erect 'a tyranny under '. tho veil of liberty!*.' - us, consider the question from the. standpoint of tho teachers? . They have entered the public servico' by agreement. ' When they entered upon that-• agreement with the State, neither party V. had in;contemplation the inculcation of religioiis tenets. ,_ It is now.sought to in- ■ ' troduce into,,their contract of-service a ■ new term, not by agreement, but by compulsion! i There may be teachers who . do not object, but thoir acquiescence affords no moral reason why " those who differ from them should bo coerced'. Tlio statesmen who framed, the;-, American Constitution made two ,very- : wise provisions—first, they forbade Parliament to iihpair .the san.ctity of contracts, and, secondly, they-provided that Parliament - should be incapable of enforcing'any religion by legislation. "Unfortunately, thoro ai-o many professing- -.democrats '; , among us whoso idea'of liberty appears v to be the placing of a policeman or Government inspector at every man's elbow. Such people find no intellectual difficulty in conceding the right of a majority to saddle -tho State-with the .'teaching-of y. ;■) religion. It is time, however, that they ■: realised that they are not to be;allowed to liave things, all their own ivaj. v: I pass by your somewhat magnilo- • querit defence of Canon- Garland, but-1 - nptice that you- make- no comment on v = his. attempt to arouso Oraiige, bigotry agajnpt my. TW vast ma- .:■ ,-jority of the Anglican communion have .- sympathy whatever with Orange fanaticism,' and I me'an no disrespect 10 <%Kem; when I 'direct public attention "to ■ •tho methods by'which Canon Garland . is seeking to strengthen his propaganda, —Lam etc;, , '' <-A'-•■■■ '■ • . P. J. O'ItEGAN. July 4. —' , j